Ecumenical discussion founded upon historic Christian orthodoxy

Jeremiah Wright’s 09/16/2001 Sermon

Not that I am interested in promoting or disclaiming Wright one way or another, but I thought that discussion of his theology might be benefited by attention to his controversial preaching in its full context. This is the big one, preached the Sunday following 9/11/2001.

Having just finished an extended paper on the imprecatory Psalms, I am quite impressed by the quality and thoughtfulness of his exposition.

Like this:

Related

11 Responses

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t hear him say that America IS Israel or a New Israel. I did like the analogy between the two, though. When I was taking my two courses in American Civilization, I found it amazing how Christian the interpretation of America was. We still hear it being said now, though not as much: “This is a CHRISTIAN nation.” Even though the Founders were Deists, Christianity was a characteristic of America. I’m not an internation scholar, and that may disqualify me in some people’s eyes, but I think other countries see us as this way as well, or at least used to.

America is not Israel or a New Israel, but it was understood to be a Christian nation, that is, a nation “under God.” As such, in light of the radical post-Christian America that we live in now, a historically conscious Christian is left wondering if there are any consequences for being historically and globally understood as being Christian and openly embracing the slaughtering of innocent children on an hourly basis! Are there any consequences for slavery? Okay, okay, so we don’t have slaves any more (although the immigrants might have something to say about that), but what about the cultural segregation that still exists? Does this not count? Racism has only ceased legally, but the essence is still alive and well. Wasn’t Sadaam once an ally of America, and didn’t we used to supply him with weaponry?

Maybe it’s just the Catholic in me that knows how to think corporately. I mean, I thought God chastizes His people? I thought God ruled the nations? With respect to nations, especially those who are seen to be His, God chastized Israel and destroyed her temple, the center of trade. With respect to nations, God chastized America and destroyed her center of trade. 9/11 (which I thought was a symbol for emergency?) isn’t something that affects most of our daily lives? That is probably why we’re still killing unborn children.

Slight tangent, but don’t trade our nation’s rich organic history for a mess of radical secularist pottage! Don’t swallow the pill that the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are peddling! America’s Founding Fathers were not primarily deists but orthodox Christians. This is not to say that they intended for America to be a Christian theocracy, but what they did envision was a nation guided by the vibrant faith of its Christian citizens, a nation where liberty meant “the freedom to do what we ought” under the conviction of conscience before God. Those who push the notion of a Deist Founding have a decidedly alternate agenda for America which requires this myth as a presupposition.

Christian nation or not, Israel was elected to reveal the Lord to the Nations. Christ and his Church still have that roel in and for the world, including America. I am decidedly more wary of the “leave politics out of the pulpit” theology than the over-identification of the Gospel with politics.

Thanks to Barth, most of the liberation pastors and theologians I know have a very high view of the preached Word and wouldn’t balk at saying that Christ says the kinds of things Wright says from the pulpit. When I was studying the NT at UTS I always appreciated the few true liberationists who said they agreed with the fundamentalists proclaiming 911 and Katrina as the judgment of God on America but for different reasons. The majority liberal students were always typically shocked at the very idea that God would/could judge anyone for anything.

This whole discussion leads to the really intruiging question of interpreting providence, something the Reformed used to be professionals at doing but have largely given up.

“The deist outlook also gained a foothold in the American colonies, where it became popular among the rich and well-born about the time of the Revolution. Of the fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, the theological leanings of some twenty have been identified. Three have been characterized as deists: Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island. Two others, John Adams of Massachusetts and George Wythe of Virginia, are described as liberal Christians strongly influenced by deism. Four, including Jefferson’s friend Benjamin Rush, were liberals not inclined toward deism. About eleven were definitely orthodox believers. Samuel Huntington, Philip Livingston, and John Witherspoon, president of Princeton University, were prominent in this last group.

“Among the founders of the American republic who were not signers of the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, James Madison, and George Mason were religious liberals leaning toward deism. Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Alexander Hamilton were generally orthodox Christians opposed to deism.”

As sticky as it can be, our foreign policy is one of the more benign in human history. We do actually try to avoid civilian death. We aren’t 100% successful, but we do make truthful attempts. We aren’t supposed to rape and pillage. When soldiers do, they get arrested. And in Iraq we even try to set-up an indigenous government (not necessarily a good idea in my opinion, but it’s a good faith attempt).

On the scale of historical empires, we’re pretty nice actually.

I don’t deny that God causes catastrophes to bring us to repentance, but I question the use that preachers put this to.

As far as your reluctance to interpret providence, especially catastrophy,I would be inclined to at least explore the posibility since there’s a lot of biblical data to help us figure out the things God really hates.

I think when I become a minister it will be the real test because I don’t see myself having the guts or conviction to preach my politcal views from the pulpit.

How does revelation fit into your ‘political’ ‘economic’ outlook in general, in non-abstract ways?

When it comes to the benignity of the American Empire, I hesitate to disagree in a forum like this, especially because I am no expert, but I’ll just say, when I factor in America’s reign over the global market my assessment isn’t the same as yours.

Well. I think that empires can be good or bad. Rome starts off relatively good, it isn’t “the bad guy” in the gospels or the book of Acts (much like Egypt is good at first with Joseph) but it turns evil later.

I do think that the big bad abomination in Revelation is the apostasy of the Jews, the holy folks. In fact, one could say that the Jews tried to mimic the Roman empire or to look to it as savior, rather than embrace the messiah they had. The fundamental conflict in all of the NT is old vs. new.

That’s all I’ve got for Rev. I don’t think it is a predominately anti-Roman empire book. I’m mostly a preterist, but not that kind. I’ve never done a detailed study though.

Now the global market stuff is also a complicated issue. America has some significant fault in that, to be sure, but it is hardly only America. I’d also want to know when the economic issues move from civil to private. If it is the case that the government grants favors to certain corps over others, then perhaps we could place the blame and divine judgment towards the corporations too.

And I don’t wan to give the US a ringing endorsement on all things, but I do want to ask the questions “Compared to what?”

I’m not against brining the thunder. I’m just not sure I’m competent to speak on many of these issues.

There is a man who attends the church that I do who teaches political science. He’s a godly Reformed Christian man with a solid family. He’s a sort of specialist on the war on terror (speaks at international conferences and all) and he’s essentially supportive of the US’s role. Now he may very well be wrong, but I simply could not in good conscious try to get into that sort of debate from the pulpit. I don’t know enough about it. I’d have to devote so much of my time to studying it, and when I consider my own weaknesses in the areas of Biblical and theological studies, I can’ say that it would be worth it.

I appreciate the humble reticence to think that we can somehow offer authoritative commentary on historical events with a “God’s eye” privilege, but isn’t that essentially what it means to prophesy–to proclaim the Word of the Lord–in the Biblical sense?

Its not that we have a direct connection to the mind of God, but that we read our circumstances in light of the coming of Jesus, in continuity with the Scriptures, and as being charged with cosmic weight. Augustine, for example, was quite willing to read the events of his day right along side previous ages as an unfolding of the divine plan. Although he was no chiliast and certainly not a Eusebian, he saw his contemporaneous history as being in continuity with what he called “the sixth age” of the City of God (De catechizandus rudibus).

This is messy, but a theological reading of history–even our own history–is part of the burden that preachers bear. Politicians can content themselves with “good enough” not being enemy of the best. Preachers are called to speak for the best and to disclaim “good enough” as idolatry.